LANGUAGE AND NEGOTIATION: A MIDDLE EAST LEXICON L · 2019. 4. 18. · Language and Diplomacy Language and Negotiation: A Middle East Lexicon Raymond Cohen therefore a shorthand symbol

Raymond Cohen

Language and Diplomacy

Language and Negotiation: A Middle East Lexicon

LANGUAGE AND NEGOTIATION:

A MIDDLE EAST LEXICON1

Raymond Cohen

Looking back on the abortive Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations of

1995-96, chief Israeli negotiator and distinguished Arabist Itamar

Rabinovich pondered the language gap between the two sides that

prevented their reaching agreement despite a clear convergence of inter-

ests: “The Israeli-Syrian dialogue”, he remarked, “was a striking example

of the ability of the two old foes, who were trying to reach agreement, to

speak in the same terms—but in a different language.”2 Why did Syria

vigorously object to Israeli insistence on “normalization”, only eventu-

ally to agree on “normal peaceful relations”? What did Syrian spokes-

men mean when they bitterly criticized Israel for “bargaining” about

peace? By definition, negotiation is an exercise in language and commu-

nication, an attempt to create shared understanding where previously there

have been contested understandings. When negotiation takes place across

languages and cultures the scope for misunderstanding increases. So much

of negotiation involves arguments about words and concepts that it can-

not be assumed that language is secondary and all that “really” counts is

the “objective” issues at stake. Can one ever speak of purely objective

issues? When those issues include emotive, intangible concepts such as

“honor”, “standing”, “national identity”, “security”, and “justice” can we

really take it for granted that the parties understand each other perfectly?

And if not, what can be done to overcome language barriers?

The Middle East Negotiating Lexicon is an interpretive dictionary ofkey negotiating words in Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew, and Turkish. It is in-tended as a reference facility for English-speaking observers and practi-tioners of negotiation interested in clarifying language and resolving lin-guistic discrepancies. For those wondering just what Syrians understandby “normalization” and “bargaining” the lexicon provides an analysis ofthe equivalent Arabic terms. Alongside difficult, contested concepts suchas “rights”, “disagreement”, and “peace”, ordinary day-to-day negotiat-ing words like “argument”, “instructions”, and “document” are also in-terpreted. It emerges that ostensibly simple ideas may be as prone to cross-cultural variation as obviously complex notions. Nevertheless, it should

67


Raymond CohenLanguage and Negotiation: A Middle East Lexicon

be emphasized that the lexicon is a guide to meaning rather than behavior.How we negotiate is influenced by our understanding of what “conces-sion”, “compromise” and other key terms imply; yet there is no linearcause-and-effect relationship between conception and action. Our ac-tions depend on a range of other factors including circumstances, issues,personalities, power, and, crucially, the feedback received from our oppo-nent. What the lexicon does is to suggest what Middle Easterners meanwhen they refer to notions such as “principle”, “commitment”, and “in-terest.” It does not purport to be a simplistic do-it-yourself manual ofnegotiating or a crystal ball, but a guide through a linguistic maze.

Besides the usual dictionary-type definition, each entry seeks to givethe range of possible meanings of words, drawing attention to specialfeatures of use, describing possible religious and historical connotations,and analyzing the social and cultural associations evoked by the word forthe native speaker. Examples of use are taken from the daily press andaccounts of negotiators. In effect, each entry consists of a brief interpre-tive and illustrated discussion. Entries for each language were preparedby two mother-tongue researchers working separately to permit cross-checking and to control for blatantly subjective interpretations. Draft ver-sions were verified by a third senior academic who was also a native speaker.Overall guidance and supervision was exercised by the author, who alsoedited the final product.

Behind the preparation of the lexicon lay the conviction that differ-ences between languages matter deeply. Living and working in two lan-guages, English and Hebrew, I was struck by how each language seemedto manifest a different outlook on the world. Things that could be saideasily and elegantly in one tongue lent themselves to laborious expres-sion in the other. Where one called for understatement, the other requiredhyperbole. Ostensibly slight nuances of tone and nice distinctions evokedquite far-reaching differences of association and meaning. Similar obser-vations have been made by many authors, nomads across cultures andlanguages.3 Indeed, “the impossibility of translation” lies at the heart ofcultural and linguistic distinctiveness (which does not mean that oneshould not try to bridge the gap). Personally, I had always been particu-larly impressed by the dramatically different sensibilities, ways of think-ing, feeling, and perceiving, reflected in the English Bible and the He-brew Bible or Tanach, for instance, in the Book of Psalms.

68

Raymond Cohen



One day a friend interested in the Jewish roots of Christianity askedme if the Christological term “the lamb of God” (agnus dei) might not bean allusion to the Passover sacrifice in the Temple of Jerusalem. Assum-ing that the first Christians would be fully conversant with the HebrewBible, I embarked on a small investigation. In Biblical Hebrew the pre-cise term for a sheep is of great importance: The society was a pastoralone and religious tradition was meticulous about the species, age, andgender of Temple sacrifices. If lamb or agnus refers to a young sheep (He-brew: seh) then the reference could not be to the Temple sacrifice dis-cussed in Leviticus (4:32, 35; 5:6, 7). Although translated as “lamb”, theoriginal Hebrew is keves, not seh. The more likely reference of agnus dei isto two other Hebrew Biblical references: One is the Exodus sacrifice of ayearling lamb (seh), whose blood was smeared on the lintels of the homesof the departing Israelites (Exodus 12:3-5). The other is the Akedah,Abraham’s journey to Mount Moriah to sacrifice Isaac, his only son. Isaacasks: “behold the fire and the wood, but where is the sacrificial lamb (seh)?”Abraham answers: “God will provide the sacrificial seh” (Genesis 22:7-8).As a political scientist and student of negotiation I concluded that if slightnuances of interpretation can be of such theological significance, thenperhaps differences in conceptualizing negotiation and conflict resolu-tion might also have important consequences.

SEMANTIC ANTINOMIES

The case for the importance of language and culture rests on the viewthat semantic distinctions reflect different interpretations of reality andnormative modes of behavior. Words and their translations are not justinterchangeable labels denoting some given, immutable feature of theworld but keys opening the door onto different configurations of the world.A stone is an object that speakers of all languages can recognize and re-spond to at a non-linguistic level. They can kick it, throw it in a pond, oruse it to crack a nut. The moment language is used and the object isnamed, culture enters the picture. As opposed to the thing itself, the word“stone” or its equivalents is a cultural notion. As such it is steeped in theculturally-grounded meanings of the given language community in thelight of its history, religion, customs, and environment. The word is

69



therefore a shorthand symbol capable of evoking a unique range of spe-cialized references, uses, and associations. Words are polysemic, that is,they have multiple clusters of meaning and usage. Across languages thesespreads of meaning occupy different semantic fields, though they may wellcoincide and overlap in certain places. Speakers of Hebrew and Englishmay talk of “peace”, using the word in appropriate contexts, and refer-ring to the same legal precedents. But what they mean by peace are subtlydifferent phenomena. “Peace” refers in English to a relationship estab-lished by treaty between states concluding war, an ideal prophetic visionof harmony, and tranquility. Shalom shares in the Biblical vision of uni-versal accord but lacks the legal features that “peace” acquired in theEuropean state system from centuries of diplomatic practice. Moreover,deriving from an ancient Semitic root referring to wholeness or complete-ness, shalom importantly connotes “health, welfare, greetings, and safety”.Hence the common Israeli army bulletin broadcast after a military op-eration: “All our planes returned b’shalom to base.” Here b’shalom means“safe and sound”, not “in peace”.

Drawing on the Middle East Negotiating Lexicon it is possible to dis-tinguish between various categories of linguistic dissonance. The follow-ing very selective register of themes is not meant to be definitive but toclarify and exemplify the basic message of this entire exercise: that lan-guages are programmes for interpreting reality and mapping the bounda-ries of possible behavior, and that they do this in diverse ways. If we havea guide to the difficult terrain, we will be better equipped to avoid pitfalls.

Here are some basic antinomies:

1. Different Distinctions Drawn

English, for reasons doubtless connected with the Anglo-Saxon regardfor democracy and the rule of law, and suspicion of untrammeled author-ity, is not very interested in drawing fine distinctions about the nature ofleadership. Significantly, apart from the pejorative term “dictator”, andloan words also referring to anti-democratic tendencies, such as führerand duce, “leader” covers all. Indeed, even “leader” can carry ironic con-notations of a bossy boots. Where distinctions are made it is by the use ofspecialist role words such as president, prime minister, secretary of state,

70

Raymond Cohen



governor, chairman of the board, and so on. These role words are largelydevoid of extra-functional associations. In fact, the word “president” isused in the United States to mean the head of any business corporation,however minor, and sometimes self-appointed. Unlike English, Turkishevokes fine shades of meaning in the granting of leadership titles. Ofcourse, were English speakers interested in doing this they could quiteeasily invent appropriate terms or borrow them from other languages.There is no suggestion—as George Orwell mistakenly claimed in 1984—that the absence of a word prevents one from thinking the thought. If thiswere the case human beings would never develop new ideas. Among theTurkish words for leader are: Ba�kan, derived from ba� meaning “head”,is used in the sense of “leader” in English, implying political leader. Ara-bic uses r�s in the same way. Cumhurba�kan� designates specifically thepresident of a state. Turks constantly use it for Rauf Denkta�, the leaderof the Turkish Cypriot community, generally using the full form “the Presi-dent of the North Turkish Cypriot Republic”, while denying it to the GreekCypriot leader, whom they designate with the title of community leaderonly. The use of the term cumhurba�kani signifies, in other words, politi-cal recognition, the grant of legitimacy. Ba�bu� is a term with strong rac-ist connotations. Though occasionally used for Must�pha Kem�l Atatürk,the founder of modern Turkey, it is usually used by the extreme Turkishright for their leaders, or for great Turkish conquerors of the past. Thetitle evokes great reverence and is denied to non-Turks. �ef, from the Frenchchef, was very much in use during the 1940s. The President at that time,�smet �nönü, had the official title of Milli �ef, meaning National Chief.Atatürk, who died in 1938, was called Ebedi �ef meaning Eternal Chief.Lider, which is a loan word from English, is widely used as the equivalentof the unemotive, technical English term. Önder, derived from ön, mean-ing front, is a neologism invented as a Turkish equivalent of the Englishword “leader”. Even so, it cannot escape the status associations of a stronglypatriarchal, hierarchical society. It therefore still conveys an aura of greaterimportance, respect and reverence than “leader” and is used particularlyto refer to great figures of Turkish history such as Atatürk. It is also aprestigious personal name for boys.

71



2. Historical Associations

Languages are not only vehicles of current meaning but also serve as theliving archives of a civilization, the repository of past customs and atti-tudes. Words carry evocations of historical usage down through the gen-erations. Where a central theme of social and national life is concerned,such as negotiation or conflict resolution, historical reverberations areinevitable. “Appeasement”, once a word with favorable resonances of peaceand reconciliation in English, can no longer be used without evokingNeville Chamberlain’s discredited policy of buying time at Czech expense.“War” evokes the numbing horror of the great world wars.

The same principle can apply to technical negotiating terms. “Del-egation” is a neutral word in English denoting a group of people author-ized to represent their country in a diplomatic or cultural capacity. Incontrast, its Arabic equivalent, w�fd, is bound up with the Arab traditionof communal visiting. A w�fd can be a delegation of reparation and con-ciliation following a domestic feud, or a group bringing condolences orcongratulations on some family occasion. The historic associations of theterm become clearer if we note that the ninth year of the Islamic calendarwas known as the year of wuf�d (plural of w�fd). It was at this time thatIslam began to spread throughout the Arabian Peninsula, with delega-tions coming to the Prophet Mohammed, swearing allegiance, and ac-cepting Islam. W�fd, in other words, goes back to the very origins of Is-lam and the building of bridges between Moslem co-religionists. Onecan still observe this phenomenon today, delegations from all over theArab world traveling from one place to another to express allegiance orrequest support. Delegations from the poorer Arab countries visit thewealthy countries of the Persian Gulf to pledge loyalty and ask for assist-ance. President Sadat of Egypt traveled on a w�fd to Saudi Arabia forhelp in the peace process with Israel and for financial aid. The custom iseven maintained by delegations of Israeli Arabs who visit Arab countriessuch as Syria in order to show their affiliation to the Arab world, and tomaintain their Arab character. W�fd is a term redolent of Arab solidarity.In Egyptian history the W�fd Party emerged in the Egyptian Parliamentafter the first world war and is associated with the struggle to free Egyptof the British protectorate that had existed since 1882. “The appellationW�fd originated in a demand by Sa’d Zaghlul [its leader]... to be allowed

72

Raymond Cohen



to proceed in a delegation to Great Britain to discuss Egypt’s relationswith the Protecting Power and her constitutional future”.4

From all these references it can be seen that w�fd combines the senseof mission (with some of the religious connotations of the English term)with that of delegation. It evokes familial Arab cohesion and sympathy asmuch as business. W�fd implies something going beyond narrow nationalinterests and appeals to wider bonds of solidarity. At the same time a hier-archical dimension undeniably enters the use of the word, as there re-mains a hint of inequality between the supplicant, visiting delegationand the receiving host. Who visits whom is a question to which govern-ments in the status-conscious Middle East are never oblivious. The cho-reography and protocol of visiting have loomed particularly large in West-ern relations with the states of the region.

3. Contrasting Values

One of the unusual features of language brought out by the lexicon isthat words that are value-free in one language imply value judgements inanother. Since words reflect cultural and religious prejudices this is per-haps not surprising. To give a concrete example, pork is a simple culinaryitem in Europe, but is the forbidden meat of a despised animal in theMiddle East. By the same token, words reverse their ethical charges acrosslanguages. “Normalization” was a seemingly neutral word originally sug-gested by United States diplomats in the 1970s to characterize the transi-tion in Arab-Israeli relations from hostility and war to normal, peacefulrelations. Words for war and peace existed but nothing for the process bywhich nations moved from one state to the other. What could be morenormal than the word “normal” and its derivation “normalization”?Unexpectedly, the word itself became a bitter subject of contention be-tween Israel and Syria, though substantively Syria grasped that there couldbe no peaceful settlement with Israel without the paraphernalia of regu-lar ties that mark the relations between states at peace.

Since there is no indigenous Hebrew word for the idea of normali-zation, normalizatzia soon caught on in Israel. Normali—“normal”—isa foreign loan word in everyday use in Modern Hebrew, so normalizatziahad a familiar ring to it, suggesting itself as a self-evident

73



characterization of the prevailing, “normal” state of relations betweennations that Israel, for long isolated in the Middle East, aimed for. SinceIsrael had never had normal relations the term acquired self-evident, posi-tive associations. Equally, its absence, a continuation of abnormality, pos-sessed strongly negative associations, being connected with a term—lonormali—suggesting irregularity and in some contexts mental deficiency.

The Arabic term for normalization has exactly the reverse valency.Tatbi‘ is connected with the word for “nature”, tabi‘a. Tatbi‘ has its originsin the ancient, nomadic Arab way of life, when animals—donkeys, horses,camels, buffalo—played a central role, and were raised and broken in,especially for riding. This dimension of tatbi‘ still exists in pastoral andrural communities, such as those of the Bedouin or fellahin (peasant farm-ers), where animals continue to be domesticated and trained for serviceas beasts of burden, whether as pack animals or for plowing. Tatbi‘, origi-nally applied to the domestication of animals, now refers to the normali-zation or naturalization of relations between individuals or countries.Although the metaphor is a strange one for the English speaker, the logicis clear: As an undomesticated animal can only be of service and enterthe household when it has been broken in, “pressed into service”, so canstates only live together side by side after they have been “trained” and“domesticated.” In the context of Israeli-Syrian negotiations these con-notations of the word are highly unfortunate: With its perennial fear ofIsraeli hegemony and acute sensitivity to hierarchical relationships, thelast thing the Syrian government wanted was to be “broken in” and“tamed” by Israel as tatbi‘ intimates. However, if tatbi‘ was consideredoffensive, tabi‘i, meaning “normal, ordinary, regular, usual, natural” wasacceptable as not implying subjugation and submission. Thus after diffi-cult negotiations at Shepherdstown in January 2000 the Israeli and Syr-ian delegations were finally able to agree on the establishment of a com-mittee on Normal Peaceful Relations.5 Here was one semantic dispute,rooted in dissonant linguistic-cultural associations, that had contributedto years of delay and ill will in a process that had started way back inMadrid in 1991.

74

Raymond Cohen



4. Difference of Emphasis

Negotiating concepts are firmly lodged within traditions of social organi-zation and leadership—political culture. In democratic societies nego-tiation between equals is the primary mechanism for handling conflict.Instead of being left to fester, disagreements are thrashed out in opendebate. Decisions are in effect made by negotiation, even between a presi-dent or prime minister and his nominal subordinates and other electedofficials. Government agencies in the West do not order about economicand social groups but negotiate with them. Information is supposed toflow downwards and upwards, so that when decisions are made it is withfull knowledge of their impact on concerned sectors of society. In con-trast, the flow of information in highly hierarchical societies is down-wards, not upwards. The free exchange of ideas is discouraged. Opendispute is often unwelcome and opposition parties lead an uncomfort-able existence, since disagreement is perceived as disloyalty to the father-figure leader. Middlemen are needed to bridge the yawning gap betweenordinary citizens and the authorities. As a highly individualist, demo-cratic society in a hierarchical neighborhood, Israel reveals a very differ-ent approach to the internal organization of negotiation than do itsneighbors. Here, language faithfully depicts culture.

A revealing case in point is the Hebrew word hanchayot, the techni-cal Hebrew term for “negotiating instructions”. What, one might think,could be more straightforward and neutral than the word used to refer tothe instructions given by a negotiating principal to his or her representa-tives? However, the connotations of hanchayot are considerably less rigidand inflexible even than the English word “instructions”. If instructionsare mandatory and constraining, hanchayot are looser and more discre-tionary. It is no accident that hanchayot mean, besides “negotiating in-structions”, “directions, guidelines, and terms of reference”. Thus,hanchayot would be the word used if one were asked by someone how toget to the supermarket, or that one would leave for a house guest to in-form her when to water the plants. Significantly, the word hanchayot isrelated to the word manche, meaning master of ceremonies, chair of adiscussion, or a TV host—that is, someone who guides rather than some-one who commands.

75



Hebrew speakers use the word hanchayot not for lack of analternative. The everyday language does in fact possess a word that cap-tures the essence of “instructions”. The term hora’ot means “orders, com-mands, directives, and instructions”. It has its origin in a root related toinstruction in the sense of teaching. In some contexts teacher, moreh, issynonymous with rabbi. The implication is that hora’ot are more authori-tative and obligatory than hanchayot. Hora’ot are the instructions that asuperior gives to a subordinate and that are not open to discussion ordebate. The term appears in such usages as “safety hora’ot” and “hora’otfor use”, where the procedure or appliance will not work unless the in-structions are strictly adhered to. In military terminology yet another word,p’kudot, orders, is used.

The fact that the word adopted for negotiating instructions,hanchayot, has looser connotations than the readily available term hora’ot,implies that in an Israeli cultural context members of a negotiating teamare given some leeway to exercise their own judgment. They do, indeed,receive hanchayot from the political echelon, but to a lesser or greater ex-tent they would be expected to display some initiative and possibly evenindependence of mind. This reflects greater individualism, a looser hier-archical set-up, a more open decision making process, and a less struc-tured approach to negotiation than is found either in other ME societiesor even Britain and the United States.

The semantic picture suggested by the preference for the flexibleword hanchayot to the inflexible word hora’ot is faithfully reproduced inthe practical Israeli conduct of negotiations. Veteran negotiator and in-ternational lawyer Joel Singer, one of the architects of the two Oslo agree-ments between Israel and the Palestinians, noted that Prime MinisterYitzhak Rabin did not provide him with “exact hanchayot where to go.”How then did he know what to negotiate? By piecing together the con-tents of remarks, speeches, and answers to questions made by the primeminister and foreign minister. “From the combination of all these wordswe built up a map of hanchayot.”6 The pattern repeated itself in the June1999 domestic negotiations to set up a governing coalition under EhudBarak. David Liba’i, who headed the negotiating team on behalf of theLabor party, describes a process in which instructions were not handeddown from on high, but in which hanchayot emerged from a “joint analy-sis of changing situations.”7 His colleague Gilead Sherr described “a

76

Raymond Cohen



dynamic and fluid process of receiving hanchayot, discussions, then go-ing back to Barak for decisions...work was carried on through consulta-tions and hanchayot, sometimes a certain issue was dealt with at the levelof the team, while another issue went up to be decided at the prime min-isterial level.”8 Almost exactly the same procedure characterized the Is-raeli conduct of the September 1999 negotiations with the Palestiniansfor the framework Sharm el-Sheikh accord: hanchayot crystallized out ofa back-and-forth, up-and down continuous stream of consultations be-tween the political and diplomatic echelons. “In contrast to the Israeliteam, that enjoyed substantial freedom of maneuver, the Palestinian ne-gotiating team…stayed close to Arafat’s hanchayot and lacked authorityto depart from them.”9

A key negotiating term such as hanchayot can be seen to be a micro-cosm of an entire culture of governance, linking up with all sorts of otherequally indicative concepts like leadership, consultations, decision mak-ing, representative, negotiating team, and so on. The fact that the Pales-tinians drew on very different culturally-grounded understandings of theseconcepts did affect the conduct of negotiations (although, for reasons al-ready explained, not necessarily the outcome). It is certainly arguable thatthe less rigid Israeli style provided for a more flexible approach to thenegotiations. This may not always be tactically advantageous, though. Itmay also lead to a miscalculation of the interlocutor’s freedom ofmaneuver. From a linguistic point of view the example corroborates thepoint that words and meanings shape expectations and influence—with-out determining—behavior.

ENGLISH AND ME LANGUAGES CONTRASTED

The Middle East Negotiating Lexicon provides the researcher with a wealthof information for comparing and contrasting English and ME negotiat-ing terms, and therefore the alternative understandings of negotiationunderlying them. Important common features link Arabic, Farsi, andTurkish notions, setting them collectively apart from English-language(and Hebrew) interpretations. Shared Islamic values and the presence ofnumerous Arabic words in Farsi and Turkish create in some respects adistinct, though not uniform, ME negotiating heritage and discourse.

77



Having noted this, one hastens to add that the adoption by Farsi andTurkish of English loan words and the deliberate replacement, particu-larly in Turkey, of traditional Arabic and Persian terms by new Turkishwords, may change this picture in the future.10 Three features of ME dis-course set it apart from English: 1. A very clear distinction between prag-matic commercial and principled political negotiation; 2. The absence ofconcepts that are pivotal to English negotiating discourse, especially “com-promise” and “concession”; 3. The prominence of central Islamic andArabic concepts embodying a very characteristic ethical outlook.

1. Meanings of Negotiation

“Negotiation” derives from the Latin negotiare meaning “to do business,trade, deal” and this original commercial sense is retained in modern Latinlanguages so that, for instance, negozio in Italian is a shop. “Negotiate”,meaning “to traffic in goods”, is found in seventeenth and eighteenthcentury texts. In contemporary English “negotiate” evokes a can-do, com-mercial world in which pragmatic individuals exchange views in order toarrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement. The ideas of discussion,business, and adroit management are present in equal proportions: Thusthe Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definitions of the word:1. “To hold communication or conference (with another) for the purposeof arranging some matter by mutual agreement; to discuss a matter witha view to some settlement or compromise.” 2. “To deal with, manage, orconduct (a matter or affair, etc., requiring some skill or consideration).”3. “To convert into cash or notes.” 4. “To deal with, carry out, as a busi-ness or monetary transaction.” 5. “To succeed in crossing, getting over,round, or through (an obstacle etc.) by skill or dexterity.” 11

The fact that “negotiate” covers a semantic field that includes bar-gaining, debate, and overcoming difficulties is extremely significant. It istaken for granted by the English speaker that in a negotiation there willbe mutual give and take, that the outcome will involve compromise, andthat it is highly desirable for the interlocutors to cooperate in the jointsearch for a solution to problems arising. “This is negotiable” in Englishmeans that there is flexibility in a negotiating position and that compro-mise is possible. It is also taken for granted that the sort of preconditions

78

Raymond Cohen



and qualities that are essential for the efficient conduct of business, suchas trust, reliability, a sense of fairness, and honesty, are generally suitedfor negotiation in its various forms, whether commercial, legal, personal,or political. Indeed, as anyone conversant with the theoretical literatureon negotiation can observe, negotiation is thought of as a generic activitysubsuming an entire range of issues and activities.

Such assumptions do not underpin the ME negotiating paradigm.Rather, a clear distinction is drawn between weighty discussions betweenauthorized representatives, in which one set of rules and expectationsapply, and bargaining in the market over quantifiable commodities, inwhich other groundrules are valid. This is reflected in Arabic by the useof two separate terms, muf�wadat and mus�wama. The most commonmeanings of muf�wadat are “negotiations”, “debate”, and “conference”.The word is derived from a root possessing the sense of commissioning,authorizing, delegating, and entrusting. This is the term used for politi-cal negotiations, a situation in which representatives of states or organi-zations come together as equals in a formal setting to discuss an issue ofmutual concern in a dignified way. This is not to deny that muf�wadathas connotations of vigorous debate and expressions of disagreement.However, it does imply that the overt expression of anger is ruled out.

Mus�wama, in contrast, can only mean bargaining over the price ofgoods. This is the meaning current in spoken Arabic. Something is onsale and the buyer and seller disagree over the terms of the transaction.They engage in mus�wama to reach a mutually acceptable deal. Mus�wamais not used to characterize formal negotiations over important politicalmatters, the realm of muf�wadat. Where mus�wama is used it suggestsundignified and not very edifying market trading, something that digni-taries avoid. The sense of huckstering leads on to another negative con-notation, namely, that the bargainers are trying to trick or outsmart eachother. If muf�wadat suggests the dignified and high-minded discussionsby statesmen of matters of principle, mus�wama suggests petty-mindedhaggling. In Arab-Israeli negotiations the representatives of Arab states,bitterly resenting having to negotiate over issues that they consider toconcern national honor—land, justice, the rights of the Palestinians—often claim that while they engage in muf�wadat, it is the Israelis whoinsist on mus�wama. Thus Kamal Hasan Ali, former Egyptian ministerof war and foreign affairs, could write in his memoirs on the 1978 Camp

79



David talks: “The Israeli position at all stages of discussions wascharacterized by trickery and mus�wama, employing a variety of meth-ods for that purpose.”12 It is against this background that Syrian unwill-ingness even to discuss the question of its borders with Israel is to beunderstood. On this matter of supreme national dignity Syria would de-mand the restoration of its rights and all negotiation-as-bargaining wasto be rejected with contempt.

The muf�wadat-mus�wama dichotomy also applies to Persian andTurkish. In both languages negotiation in the sense of the courtly ex-change of views is denoted by the same term mozákereh/müzakere (from aroot meaning mention, recite, praise). Implied are discussions conductedin a serious, positive, and sociable atmosphere, with interlocutors con-sulting each other in an amicable way, putting forward constructive sug-gestions. Equally, Persian and Turkish words connected to commercialbargaining are redolent of the bazaar and low status. It should be re-membered that the market is a central institution in both Iran and Tur-key and that there is very little that you cannot buy there. The main ba-zaars of Teheran and Istanbul are gigantic emporiums, sprawling overentire quarters of their respective cities. Bargaining is a way of life. Thus,the Farsi ��ne zadan and mo‘male-ye b�z�ri suggest both haggling andvulgar chatter; the Turkish pazarl�k, derived from the Persian word ba-zaar, also implies petty haggling.

Traditionally, bargaining, commercial style, was viewed in Turkey asquite unsuitable for the conduct of international relations. Pazarl�k re-minded people right away of the bazaar and money, and they felt thataffairs of state should be conducted in terms of national interests, of rightsand principles, rather than of nickles and dimes. At the same time, diplo-matic negotiation in conflict situations was viewed in stark black andwhite terms. The Turkish approach to the Cyprus dispute with Greecewas presented as a choice between “partition or death!” In recent years, amore pragmatic approach has made its appearance, connected with Turk-ish modernization and westernization, the purposive abandonment sincethe time of Atatürk of Arabic influences in society and language. Nowa-days, the Turkish elite think of Turkey as an organic part of Europe andTurkey was accepted in 1999 as a candidate for membership of the Euro-pean Union. Significantly, the term pazarl�k is increasingly used in for-eign affairs. Speaking to Parliament in 1983 Prime Minister Turgut Özal

80

Raymond Cohen



spoke of his government’s aspirations to become a full member of theCommon Market: “We have said that very clearly; but we also added that:‘We don’t want to humiliate ourselves by being reduced to a nation deter-mined to join no matter what, because we want to pazarl�k… If you say‘No, we still want to enter it at any cost’, like people used to say, then youdon’t have the chance to bargain… I know this for sure: European coun-tries love pazarl�k and they really appreciate those who make seriouspazarl�k”.13

2. The Absence of Key English Concepts

Compromise and concession are inseparable from negotiating in theEnglish-speaking world. As we have seen, one of the very definitions of“negotiate” is “to discuss a matter with a view to some settlement or com-promise”, where “compromise” is synonymous with agreement. Otherclosely connected notions are give and take and reciprocity. All of theseideas are thought of as natural features of negotiation, without which asuccessful result is considered unlikely. According to the Anglo-Saxonphilosophy of negotiation it is the very process of give and take, of mu-tual concession, that legitimizes the outcome. One often hears it said that“if neither side is entirely satisfied then clearly the agreement must be afair one”. Obviously, individual instances of concession and compromisemight be ill-advised and one-sided but there is no doubt that they aregenerally assumed to be indispensable as principles of conduct. That theyare viewed with favor is demonstrated by the tendency in English to el-evate “compromise”, “give and take”, and “reciprocity” into reified vir-tues in their own right. “What is needed,” we hear from Western media-tors active in some Middle Eastern dispute, “is a spirit of Compromiseand Give and Take.”

None of these fundamental assumptions are present in the ME para-digm of negotiation. Neither Arabic, Farsi, nor Turkish possesses a spe-cial term for “compromise”. It is true that the functional equivalent ofthis is implicit in the words for arrangement, agreement, settlement, rec-onciliation, and others. Middle Easterners are aware that a dispute canonly be settled when both sides are willing to make sacrifices, and thatagreements come about only when neither side can claim total victory

81



over the other. The point is that mutual sacrifice is not seen as somethingdesirable in and of itself. Quite the reverse: who is enthusiastic aboutmaking a sacrifice? Thus an appeal to the Spirit of Compromise, as onemight appeal to truth and justice, is literally meaningless in ME languages.Another way to grasp the difference between the paradigms is throughthe word “concession”. In the English-speaking world negotiators arethought of as making progress by moderating their initial demands onconverging paths to agreement. Both sides give something up in an alter-nating and incremental choreography of concession until they finally meet“somewhere in the middle”. However, the functional equivalents of con-cession in ME languages are synonymous, not with moderation or eq-uity, but with surrender and relinquishment.

The Arabic term tan�zul, and the Turkish terms taviz and ödün, haveone dominant meaning in current usage: giving up something one pos-sesses as of right. This might be the result of persuasion or force but theimplication of unfortunate loss is the same. Tan�zul is actually derivedfrom a root meaning “coming down” or “dismounting from a horse”.There is no denying the potential for a humiliating climb-down implicitin the term. In some circumstances there are some things that can besurrendered on a basis of mutual exchange, tab�dul, in order to obtainbenefit. But deeply cherished values are given up with only the very greatestreluctance as implying grave loss of face, for example, matters touchingon personal, family, or national honor, land, and status. Tan�zul has es-pecially strong connotations of surrender and defeat in cases where theconcession was imposed by one side on a weak and unwilling partner.This sense of the term, it should be emphasized, is the commonest one.There are some cases, where concessions are equal and reciprocal on bothsides—and seen by all to be so—and tan�zul would be defensible. Butthis would be the exception rather than the rule. Writing of a change inEgypt’s position on a matter concerning Arab League representation at aconference of the Organization of African Unity, Butrus Ghali describeshis care to avoid the impression that the shift was in fact a concession: “Ihad to wait a day or two for the change in my position not to be inter-preted as a tan�zul that the Egyptian delegation was making so the con-ference would succeed”.14

82

Raymond Cohen



3. Characteristic Islamic Concepts

Lacking the concepts of compromise, give and take, and reciprocity, MElanguages nevertheless share a distinct set of powerful ideas, derived froma common Islamic-Arabic heritage. These key values are reified and ap-pealed to as legitimate arguments and justifications for action. They, too,set ME discourse apart from the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

At the head of the list I would put the Arabic word h�qq (haqq inPersian, hak in Turkish) covering an extensive semantic field including“duty”, “right”, “correctness”, “righteousness”, “justice”, and “truth”.Derived from a root meaning “cut, engrave, inscribe” h�qq came to de-note an “established fact”, hence, “reality”. In classical Arabic h�qq re-ferred to “permanently valid laws expanded to cover the ethical ideals ofright and real, just and trust, and developed further to include DivineSpiritual Reality.” H�qq frequently appears in the Koran as one of theninety-nine names of Allah. In legal terms it meant “claim” and “right”in the sense of a legal entitlement.15 H�qq is still acknowledged withoutdebate to epitomize the highest good, something that it is impossible tocall into question. Since H�qq is one of the names of God it also hasreligious connotations familiar to all Moslems. It is used in the oath takenby witnesses before testifying in court. The noteworthy point about thesemantic field of h�qq is that truth, justice, virtue, and human rights areseen as different facets of a single, perfect concept. In English these vari-ous notions are separate. Equally, the absolutist vision of justice embod-ied in h�qq “though the heavens fall” is very different from the pragmatic,contextual assumption underlying the case-oriented approach of theEnglish Common Law. The idea that a jury of twelve “good men andtrue” using their common sense could arrive at a fair verdict, a notion atthe heart of Anglo-Saxon justice, is alien to the Islamic tradition embod-ied in h�qq. Justice is from God, not ordinary citizens. Given the sacro-sanct connotations of the term it is perhaps not surprising that speakersof ME languages find it as natural to evoke h�qq as a justification for aposition as it is repugnant to compromise it.

In the Arab world h�qq is frequently used in the context of the Pales-tinian question. Thus for President Sadat’s Foreign Minister Isma’il Fahmia crucial principle to take into account in dealing with Israel was “recog-nizing the h�qq of the Palestinian people to freely fulfill their h�qq to

83



determine their fate, thereby to establish a Palestinian state”.16 In Farsi,alongside haqq as a supreme value, the term is also used to refer to thesacred national rights and resources of the Iranian people expropriatedby the imperialist powers. Past wrongs manifestly remain a source of greatresentment. In Modern Turkish hak similarly refers to patriotic rights,particularly in the context of the historical dispute with Greece. As part ofTurkey’s modernizing and secularizing trend the word has also acquiredimportant connotations of individual rights. Hence �nsan haklar� is hu-man rights; temel haklar is basic rights; ya�amak hakk� is the right to life.

In their conception of conflict and its resolution ME languages shareother significant common features. These include: the crucial lubricativerole of the mediator/middle man (Arabic wasit, Farsi vesátat); the treatyas a covental exchange of oaths (Arabic mu‘ahada, Turkish muahede, Farsi‘ahd-námeh); and good faith as purity of heart, “good intention”, as in astate of mind conducive to sincere prayer (Arabic niyya h�sana, Farsi hosneniyyat, Turkish �yiniyet). Particularly noteworthy is the distinction foundin both Arabic and Farsi (but not Modern Turkish), between peace asnon-aggression (sal�m, mosálemat ámiz) and peace as reconciliation (sulh,solh). Completely absent from Western conceptions of peace as a seam-less web of good will and amity, grasp of the sal�m-sulh distinction is vitalto an understanding of international affairs in the Middle East.

The dictionaries translate both sal�m and sulh as “peace”. Salâm hasnumerous meanings and covers the semantic field of “peace”, “safety”,“security”, “health”, and “wellbeing”. It is in constant everyday use as acommon term of greeting. Like shalom, the underlying idea runningthrough many of its senses is of something whole and without blemish.Sal�m also has Moslem religious connotations as one of the names ofGod and appears in a variety of pious expressions. In political and inter-national contexts sal�m denotes a formal state of contractual peace. Speak-ers of Arabic tend to use it when referring to peace between non-Arabnations. Sulh, like sal�m, evokes a vision of harmony, tranquillity, andprosperity. It results from the termination of conflict and reconciliationbetween formerly disputing parties. In Islamic history sulh was used torefer expressly to the condition of peace resulting from the expansion ofIslam and the extension of Arab hegemony achieved without bloodshedby treaties of submission rather than by war.

84

Raymond Cohen



There is some debate about the precise difference between sulh andsal�m today, since the two terms are used interchangeably and impre-cisely in everyday speech. Sal�m tends to refer to formal peace betweengovernments, peaceful coexistence, while sulh is used to mark a situationof true reconciliation between peoples following the conclusion of sal�m.Sal�m might not remove all underlying sources of contention; sulh wouldfinally and conclusively resolve the conflict by addressing the underlyingcauses and resentments. During the cold war the superpowers lived in astate of sal�m but not sulh. In domestic contexts sulh refers specifically tothe reconciliation achieved as a result of elaborate procedures of conflictresolution laid down by custom between clans or individuals. In negoti-ating with Israel President Sadat distinguished carefully between the twoterms, using sal�m in the sense of non-belligerency, sulh as the final endto the Arab-Israeli conflict, when all issues had been resolved and recon-ciliation achieved. The declaration la mus�lihuhum, meaning “we shallnot make sulh with them” was made by President Sadat before his mis-sion of sal�m to Jerusalem in November 1977.

If anything, Farsi sharpens the sal�m-sulh distinction. The best trans-lation of mosálemat ámiz is “peaceful coexistence” or “cold peace”. It im-plies the mere negative absence of war and the formal existence of diplo-matic relations, without the economic benefits and cordial relations thattrue peace with a neighbor should yield. Solh, in contrast, refers to peacein its most general sense. Thus it can be used to characterize relationswithin the family, between communities, or between states. The absenceof war, whether inside the country or with a foreign power, can be char-acterized as a state of solh, provided that it is understood that the termi-nation of hostilities has paved the way for full reconciliation and goodneighborly relations. If mosálemat ámiz is negative, cool peace, solh ispositive, warm peace. An example of the latter would be the profoundnational reconciliation that took place between Japan and the UnitedStates after World War II. When two nations are in a state of solh, peace isnot limited to stiff and restricted government-to-government ties in apurely political sense, but also involves economic and trade relations, andgoodwill between peoples. Solh is therefore more than minimal peacefulcoexistence, since that suggests that the peoples have little to do with eachother, living in a state of mutual sufferance. Solh means living side-by-side in active cooperation, friendship, and harmony.

85



CONCLUSIONS

A close reading of the Middle East Negotiating Lexicon makes it clear thatEnglish and ME languages agree on how negotiation writ large is to bedepicted. There is concurrence that in a negotiation there are contacts,delegations, envoys, meetings, conferences, talks, proposals, conditions,initiatives, arguments, demands, persuasion, deadlocks, solutions, com-mitments, guarantees, understandings, documents, agreements, treaties,signings, and ratifications. This demonstrates the existence of a universalmodel of the basic procedures, the nuts and bolts, of negotiation. It is noless than what one would expect from a global diplomatic system basedon the United Nations and other international agencies, the Vienna Con-ventions, and common diplomatic instruments and institutions.

At the same time this impressive consensus on the mechanics of ne-gotiating conceals subtle, yet far-reaching differences in the way basicconcepts and moves are interpreted, evaluated, and actualized. Differentcultures concur on the big picture of negotiation just as they agree on thebig picture of governance, art, family, cuisine, and leisure. We are, afterall, one human family. But the devil is in the detail. First and foremost,there is disagreement on the ethos or philosophy of negotiation. This canbe understood at the level of metaphor. In English there are two prevail-ing metaphors shaping how negotiation is conceived, one sporting, theother commercial. The sporting metaphor emerges in such terms as “levelplaying field”, “opening bid”, “fair offer”, “hold strong cards”, “call yourbluff ”, “rules of the game”, “end game”, and so on. This vocabulary re-flects a tendency to think of negotiation as a sporting contest governed byset rules. After a hard fought, but fair game, there is a result and the teamsgo home. This metaphor makes it difficult to conceive of a negotiation asa life or death confrontation between possibly unscrupulous opponentswilling to try every (dirty) trick in the book, and not played by theQueensberry Rules. The commercial metaphor is inherent in the veryterm “negotiation” and the emphasis on the mercantile virtues of “confi-dence”, “give and take”, “reciprocity”, “hard bargaining”, and a “gooddeal”. In the Middle East negotiation is not configured in terms of eithermetaphor. Games are for children, not sober political leaders, and com-mercial bargaining is for the market. The prevailing metaphors of nego-tiation in Arabic are taken from the Koran and the life of the Prophet

86

Raymond Cohen



Mohammed, Islamic law, and rural life. �qaba, “obstacle” or “steep moun-tain road” in Arabic, recalls delicate negotiations on a mountain pathbetween Mohammed and emissaries from Medina at a critical point inthe Prophet’s career. Mab‘uth, “envoy”, also means “one who is resur-rected from the dead”. Taken altogether the Arabic language of negotia-tion evokes a deeply serious, principled activity infused with moral pur-pose.

The core ideas and values enshrined in negotiation are also verydifferent in English and ME languages. English chooses to apotheosizeCompromise, Reciprocity, and Give and Take. These are ideals to be ap-pealed to and goals to be pursued as axiomatically desirable. Arabic, Farsi,and Turkish, for their part, reify H�qq and can only with some difficultyfind synonyms for the English terms. Hebrew has Bitachon as its highestgood, a word meaning “security”, but also covering a semantic field thatincludes “certainty” and “confidence”. English, Hebrew, and Arabic lendequal weight to the abstract ideal of peace, but mean different things bythe word. If Arabic distinguishes between formal peace, sal�m, and rec-onciliation, sulh, the Hebrew term shalom means sal�m-with-sulh. Thuslanguage reflects which concepts are thought of as sacred cows, whichminimized, which overlooked.

It is at the detailed lexical level that semantic differences are as sub-tle as they are elusive. Equivalents can invariably be found for negotiat-ing terms. But literal translation does not capture discrepancies of mean-ing, dissonant resonances, and divergent associations. Languages drawboundaries in different places. Where one language chooses to assimilateseparate concepts into a single word, another chooses separate words forwhat seems to be the same idea. English distinguishes “trust” from “con-fidence”. No ME tongue does so, implying that no distinction is drawnbetween trust as a high ethical, religious concept as in “In God We Trust”and confidence as the ability to rely on a business partner. Farsi differen-tiates between two concepts of “interests”, manáfe‘ and maslahat, the firstreferring to advantage in a competitive, zero-sum situation, the second tobenefit achieved without harming anyone else. Equivalent words havevery different ethical associations: “Crisis” denotes opportunity as muchas emergency. Bohrán (Farsi), �zma (Arabic), kriz or bunalim (Turkish)refer to abnormal and undesirable states of emergency, to be avoided ifpossible. Very different evaluations of conflict and disputation also divide

87



Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish from English (and Hebrew). The sense thatdispute, debate, polemic, and so on are thoroughly good things is dis-played by a rich and varied Hebrew vocabulary of argumentation. Evenmachloket, the term for disagreement, has positive connotations. Pilpulrefers to a very specific and untranslatable style of legal discussion. Thusvocabulary can reflect the desirability or undesirability of features of ne-gotiating, while identifying and drawing attention to concepts not de-marcated in other languages.

Without determining behavior, semantic differences are bound toaffect the range of negotiating choices and order of preferences amonggiven options. One cannot engage in pilpul without knowing what pilpulis. When “argument” is a word with bad connotations for you, then youare inclined to shy away from arguing things out. Similarly, the attractionof “risk”, “pressure”, and “threat” is influenced by the positive or negativevalency of the concept in the context of negotiating. Lacking indigenouswords for risk (as opposed to danger) Farsi and Persian adopted a foreignloan word for the probability of losses in gambling or trading, hence reeskand risk or riziko. But it would be unusual to find the term used in diplo-matic contexts because risk/danger is deprecated in international affairs.On the other hand, if “deal” has a good sound in your language then youwill go for it. If you possess just one or two synonymous terms, as He-brew does, hitakshut/akshanut, for “perseverance, insistence, persistence,doggedness, tenacity, obstinacy, intransigence, recalcitrance, and obdu-racy” it becomes more difficult than otherwise to gauge and calibratedetermined negotiating. On the other hand, if “agreement” and “com-promise” mean the same thing, as they do in Hebrew (pshara), then youare conditioned to identify agreement with compromise, and tend to actaccordingly.

Many more examples of linguistic diversity could be drawn from theMiddle East Negotiating Lexicon but by now the general point should beclear. Language is not a neutral, transparent medium, like water, but morelike a set of operating instructions, a computer programme. When it comesto negotiation, the mechanics across cultures are common; differences liein the linguistic software, of which there are up to six thousand packageson offer. This has several very clear implications: one is that languagecannot simply be factored out of the negotiating equation. If this is ac-cepted then it follows that close attention has to be paid to the

88

Raymond Cohen



negotiating vocabularies and dominant metaphors of languages other thanEnglish. Another implication is that English, for its part, is not a meta-language above and beyond culture, able to convey the “reality” of nego-tiation in an objective way. Its outlook can be as odd as that of any sup-posedly exotic ME language. To perceive negotiation in sporting terms isfairly idiosyncratic. Nor let us forget that at different times Arabic, Per-sian, Turkish, and Aramaic (if not Hebrew) have all been internationallinguae francae thought to express culturally privileged views of the world,just like English today. Finally, semantic diversity requires the construc-tion of various kinds of educational tools and information aids to facili-tate communication across otherwise incompatible software programmes.

As long as negotiation is written or thought about only in English,as though it were the exclusive language of the human race, cultural andsemantic divergences across peoples are bound to be obscured becausethere is no basis of comparison. To reveal unusual features of any lan-guage, English included, requires the Archimedean leverage that onlyanother language can supply. The singularity of the English-languageconcepts of “fair offer” or “confidence-building” only becomes clear whenone considers their ME equivalents.

In objection to my case it may be maintained that native languagesare no longer particularly relevant because only English really counts to-day: According to this argument, diplomats are fluent in English, themodern global language, and most international negotiations are carriedon in that tongue. Treaties and other important documents are very oftendrafted in English. International organizations conduct most of theiroperations in English. For instance, the Association of Southeast AsianNations (ASEAN) transacts its business in English, not Malay or Chi-nese. Even French diplomats privately acknowledge that they have lostthe battle for linguistic supremacy.

Let there be no mistake: the use of an international language such asEnglish is indispensable for the efficient handling of international affairs,broadly defined. In the past, historical international languages such asAkkadian, Latin, and French played this same essential role. Moreover,the very possibility of a lingua franca strongly suggests that different cul-tures share a great deal of common ground in their understanding ofwhat negotiation writ large entails. The institution of negotiation, along-side other instruments of international contact, may well go back to the

89



third millennium BCE, if not earlier. However, it seems to me that theinfallibility of English as a universal panacea to problems of cross-cul-tural communication and international negotiation has been greatly ex-aggerated. The reasons why the capacity of English to deliver is limitedare to be found in features of globalisation and the mechanics of negoti-ating.

Paradoxically, at the very moment that it greatly expands the scopeof international contact, globalization diminishes the exclusive role ofpolyglot professional diplomats. Nowadays many non-diplomats, whoare not necessarily fluent in English or another second language, are in-volved in international negotiations. Much international negotiating,covering a bewildering and ever-increasing range of activities, is conductedwith very few diplomats present. Political figures, officials from domesticagencies, and private citizens often dominate delegations to internationalconferences. Nor do all leaders by any means know English well.Moreover, even when face-to-face talks between delegations take place inEnglish this does not neutralize the influence of the mother tongue. Tospeak in English is not necessarily to think in English. Consultationswithin delegations and between the delegations and home are invariablyin the mother tongue. Instructions, reports, original drafts, speeches todomestic audiences, and press stories will also be expressed in the ver-nacular and not English. Doubtless, when negotiations concern techni-cal matters linguistic nuances are unlikely to loom large. Professionalsindeed share a common language. But the more politicized, contentious,public, and complex the issue under negotiation, the greater the potentialimpact of linguistic differences. This is particularly the case with topicstouching on the national patrimony, honor, cherished national assets,human rights, ideology and religion, and protracted historical disputes.An Italian friend, reasonably proficient in English, asked me at a recentconference if it was true that English was a very precise language andtherefore well suited to play the role of a lingua franca. I was surprised bythe question because I had always thought of English as ambiguous andimprecise compared to the translucent, razor-sharp French of receivedtruth. The fact is that foreign languages often appear precise to non-na-tive speakers because they only know them one-dimensionally and aretherefore often unconscious of the rich, underlying layers of meaningand nuance. My Italian friend was comparing his “thin” school-learnt

90

Raymond Cohen



“international” English with his “thick”, nuanced, mother tongue Italianof hearth and home, with its wealth of literary and cultural resonances.As long as the lingua franca is used in a mechanical (and culturally im-poverished) way, with a limited vocabulary, narrowly defined accordingto clearly understood conventions, then international business—commer-cial, scientific, technical—can be efficiently conducted. Air traffic con-trollers and airline pilots, importers and exporters, scientists and engi-neers, need little more than a bare-bones technical language. But as in-ternational cooperation thrives, as relationships and communities flour-ish, as cultures intertwine, the limitations of a thin international languageare bound to become increasingly apparent. Multilateral negotiation mayhave reached a high water mark.

For rich and intimate communication on complex, important issuessomething more is needed. Obviously, English has an essential role as acommon denominator in negotiation. At the same time, the reality oflinguistic diversity with its potential for confusion and asynchrony shouldbe fully recognized. The solution to it is not just the imposition of a sin-gle language necessarily possessing a monocultural view of the world. Itis the acquisition of several foreign languages, indeed the celebration ofmultilingualism. In addition, the comparative study of language and theelucidation of lexical differences can help overcome misunderstandinggrounded in the illusion of semantic uniformity. The Middle East Negoti-ating Lexicon is meant as a step in that direction.

ENDNOTES

1 The project reported on here was generously funded by the Washing-ton-based United States Institute of Peace as part of its long-standingcommitment to investigating national negotiating styles.

2 Itamar Rabinovich, “Damascus’s Version,” Ma’ariv, 28 February 1997.

3 For instance, George Steiner, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Trans-lation, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); Eva Hoffman,Lost in Translation: A Life in a New Language (London: Minerva, 1991).

91



4 Encyclopedia of Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1965-), vol. 3, 516.

5 For a revealing glimpse into the tortured deliberations on the term seeJames F. Rubin, State Department Press Briefing, January 5, 2000.

6 Interview, Ma’ariv, 7 July 1995.

7 Interview, Ha’aretz, 5 July 1999.

8 Interview, Ma’ariv, 2 July 1999.

9 Uzi Benziman, “Dangerous Currents,” Ha’aretz, 10 September 1999.

10 See Geoffrey Lewis, The Turkish Language Reform (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1999).

11 Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), vol. X,3. I have abridged the long dictionary entry.

12 Kamal Hasan Ali, Mashawir al ‘Umr (Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq, 1994),401.

13 Çayhan Esra, Dünden Bugüne Türkiye-Avrupa Birli�i �liþkileri ve SiyasalPartilerin Konuya Bak�� (Istanbul: Boyut Kitaplari, 1997), 255-256.

14 Butrus Butrus Ghali, Tariq Misr ila al-Quds (Cairo: Al-Ahram, 1997),246.

15 Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 3, 82-3.

16 Isma’il Fahmi, Al-Tafawud min ajl al-Salam fi al-Sharq al-Awsat (Cairo:Madbuli, 1985), 288.

92

Documents

LANGUAGE AND NEGOTIATION: A MIDDLE EAST LEXICON L · 2019. 4. 18. · Language and Diplomacy Language and Negotiation: A Middle East Lexicon Raymond Cohen therefore a shorthand symbol